Petitioner summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on trial testimony despite being kept in column No.2 after investigation. The High Court held that alibi is a defence matter for trial, specific role attributed by PW-3 sufficed, and dismissed the Section 482 petition upholding the impugned orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 Reserved on: 12.05.2026 Pronounced on: 13.05.2026 Uploaded on: 13.05.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
Jasvinder Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Argued by:- Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
MANDEEP PANNU, J .
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -2-
brothers Raj Kumar and Ram Parshad were standing on the road near their house and were talking with each other. In the meantime, Sukhbir and Ram Nath sons of Genda Ram, Jaswinder son of Ram Nath also came at the spot and talks were being held about the mortgage of our land, because the land of his brother Jasmer had been mortgaged with Rekha Rani wife of Sukhbir about seven years ago and on account of this, a dispute has erupted between them. It was further alleged that on hearing the noise of dispute, Rekha Rani and Salochna wife of Ram Nath also reached at the spot. Rekha Rani was having a gandasi in her hand, who has given it to her husband and Salochna was having a sword in her hand which she had given to her husband Ram Nath. Thereafter, Sukhbir hit him with the gandasi on his head, which he was holding in his hand and hit on the finger of his left hand and wrist, Ram Nath hit his brother Raj Kumar on his left foot with the Sword and others hit with brick bats. His brother Ram Parshad has been hit by all the above with brick bats. It was also stated that they have also inflicted injuries to them in self defense and thereafter, the assailants ran way with their respective weapons.
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -3-
of Sukhbir. We were having talks with Sukhbir, Ram Nath, Jasvinder and we had a tiff with them and after that Sukhbir’s wife Rekha Rani who was having a gandasi in her hand, gave it to Sukhbir and Sukhbir hit the gandasi on the head of Jarnail, on his left hand and also on left arm. Salochna wife of Ram Nath came with a sword and Ram Nath hit Raj Kumar on his left leg and after that, Jasvinder hit me with brick bats and salochna and Rekha Rani also hit with brick bats and stones.” Thereafter, after recording the statement of PW-3 Ram Parshad, one of the alleged injured, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the injured/complainant for summoning of Jasvinder Singh as an additional accused to face trial along with the other co-accused. It is relevant to mention here that earlier also, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Court of learned JMIC vide order dated 05.04.2017.
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -4-
Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, and vide impugned order dated 06.06.2018, the same has been dismissed. While dismissing the revision petition, learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the summoning order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the learned trial Court was based upon the allegations levelled in the complaint and the same stood duly supported by the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses recorded before the trial Court. It was further observed that specific allegations regarding active participation in the occurrence had been attributed to the present petitioner and there was clear cut mention regarding his presence at the spot. Learned revisional Court also observed that at the stage of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court was not required to look into the prospective defence of the accused and the only point for consideration was whether there was any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under challenge. Finding no such illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -5-
presence at the place of occurrence was not proved and, accordingly, he was kept in column No.2 of the challan. Learned counsel has further argued that initially, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 05.04.2017 after specifically observing that no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and only a general allegation was levelled that all of them had caused injuries with stones and brick bats. It has been contended that the complainant materially improved his version while appearing in the witness box by specifically alleging for the first time that the petitioner had caused injuries with brick bats and stones. It has further been argued that although the revisional Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without independently applying its judicial mind, mechanically passed the summoning order dated 02.11.2017 merely on the basis of the statement made during trial. Learned counsel submits that the impugned summoning order is based upon conjectures and surmises and is a non-speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that summoning of an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a serious matter and the power is required to be exercised sparingly and only upon strong and cogent evidence. It has been argued that in the present case, the Courts below failed to appreciate that there was no specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR or in the earlier statements and the subsequent improvement statement made by PW-3 in Court could not have formed the sole basis for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. It has further been argued that both
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -6-
the Courts below failed to properly consider the findings recorded during investigation by the DSP, wherein the petitioner had been found innocent, and thus, the impugned orders have been passed mechanically without proper application of mind.
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -7-
has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 504 , to contend that although the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, yet even a person who has not been charge-sheeted can be summoned as an additional accused if from the evidence brought before the Court, a prima-facie case emerges showing his involvement in the commission of offence and that such person could be tried together with the other accused.
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -8-
named in the FIR and his presence at the spot has never been disputed. Although no specific injury was initially attributed to him in the FIR, however, the allegations therein clearly reveal that “others hit with brick bats” and “all the above with brick bats”, which prima-facie included the present petitioner also, as he was admittedly part of the assembly present at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, while appearing in the witness box, PW-3 Ram Parshad specifically stated on oath that Jasvinder hit me with brick bats. Thus, a specific role came to be attributed to the petitioner during trial proceedings.
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
CRM-M No.29332 of 2018 -9-
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(MANDEEP PANNU) 13.05.2026 JUDGE neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
NEETU RANI 2026.05.13 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a person found innocent during investigation and placed in column No.2 can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on trial testimony attributing a specific role to him.
Whether the summoning and revisional orders suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh vs. State of JharkhandRelied on¶9
Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 504
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jasvinder Singh
State of Haryana
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Mandeep Pannu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
